The Information Basis of Matching with Propensity Score
|
|
- Cordelia Walker
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 The Information Basis of Matching with Esfandiar Maasoumi Ozkan Eren Southern Methodist University Abstract This paper examines the foundations for comparing individuals and treatment subjects in experimental and other program evaluation contexts. We raise the question of multiattribute "characterization" of individuals both theoretically and statistically. The paper examines the information basis of characterizing individuals and offers alternatives motivated by welfare and decision theories. The proposed method helps place propensity scores and other "matching" proposals in context and reveals their advantages and disadvantages. We do not find the implied theoretical assumptions underlying propensity scores to be attractive or robust. Our proposal does not "solve" the matching problem, but provides bounds on inferences and makes clear the arbitrariness of specific solutions. Key Words: treatment effect; information theory; multivariate scaling; propensity scores; utility functions; fundamentalism; Kullback-Leibler; entropy; aggregation. 1 Introduction The literature on "treatment" effects and program/policy evaluation deals with a classic problem of unobserved outcomes by "matching" through observed covariates. In order to isolate/identify the effect of treatment alone, the "counterfactual" outcomes must be obtained. This requires control for all other factors that may significantly contribute to the apparent differences in outcomes. A mechanism is needed for the way these covariates influence outcomes or choices, such as the decision to Corresponding author: Esfandiar Maasoumi, Department of Economics, SMU, Dallas, TX ; maasoumi@mail.smu.edu. participate or probability of treatment. We do not deal with the choice of covariates and its division into observed and unobservables, or exogenous and endogenous variables. A recent insightful survey on this is Heckman and Navaro-Lozano (2004). But we deal with how these covariates are employed in order to "characterize" subjects, through estimation and/or matching, and by any transformations thereof, to determine "similarity" between members of samples or population groups. Our "representation" perspective and techniques further expose the meaning and limitations of Propensity Scores (PS). We briefly consider aspects of the outcome/treatment distributions to be examined, the means, quantiles, or entire distributions. The existing literature is predominantly focused on "averages" or mean treatment effects, conditional on various information sets. Notable exceptions attempt to model for conditional quantiles in an attempt to avoid the "veil of ignorance" and reveal more of the reality that outcomes are distributed and "averages" can often mislead. See Imbens (2004) for a survey. Our alternative approach suggests natural ways of dealing with the whole distribution of both the characterizing covariates and the outcomes. We only sketch and exemplify full distribution methods such as entropy divergences, equality and/or dominance between whole distributions of attributes and outcome, respectively. The intuition behind our main proposals in this paperisasfollows: Let x i be a set of m attributes or characteristics for "individual" i =1, 2,...n. Subsets of x i determine choices, selection, and/or outcomes of policy or treatment programs. We propose to choose a function S(x i ) to represent or summarize each individual. We believe the choice of functionals S(x i ), perhaps as utility or welfare evaluation functions, must be dealt with explicitly. Powerful implications
2 of welfare axioms of fundamentality, "impartiality", and anonymity may be invoked which partially justify the same "common representations" for everyone s preferences, in functional forms and for representative agent formalisms; see Kolm (1977) and Maasoumi (1986a). Simply put, if we enter into a preference function all the attributes that would matter (i.e., as m increases indefinitely), the need for ex post and often arbitrary heterogeneity in functional representations and other approximations would be diminished. There are philosophical and empirical/data availability issues bearing upon this "ideal", however, leading to practical admission of heterogeneity as well as functional approximations. In what follows, we focus on the casesinwhichtheassumptionof"selectiononobservables" is plausible. 2 Optimal Multiattribute Functions Let X ij denote a measure of attribute j = 1, 2,..., m, associated with individual (unit, household, country) i =1, 2,..., n. Define the covariate matrix X = (X ij ), X i its ith row, X j its jth column, and consider any scalar function of the matrix X. Examples of such scalar functions are inequality measures or Social Welfare Functions (SWFs), or propensity scores. It has proven difficult to develop consensus axioms which may characterize an ideal scalar measure of X, such as aggregators or inequality measures Our approach is based on measures of closeness and affinity which may identify either attributes that are similar in some sense, and/or determine a mean-value, or aggregate, which most closely represents the constituent attributes. The difficulty of selecting a measure of "similarity" has had some resolution in information theory which seems to suggest members of the Generalized Entropy (GE) family as ideal criteria of closeness or divergence. Axiomatic characterization of GE is, however, beyond the scope of the present paper. The interested reader may refer to Maasoumi (1993). Following Maasoumi (1986a), let S i denote the aggregate or mean function for the ith unit. It makes little difference to our approach whether S i is interpreted as an individual s utility evaluations or the observer s or policy maker s assessments for individual i. Let us define the following Generalized Multivariate GE measure of closeness or diversity between the m densities of the chosen m attributes: mx nx D β (S, X; α) = α j { S i [(S i /X ij ) β 1]/β(β+1)} j=1 i=1 (1) where α j s are the weights attached to each attribute. Minimizing D β with respect to S i such that P S i =1, produces the following optimal aggregation functions: mx S i ( α j X β ij ) 1/β,β 6= 0, 1 (2) j S i Π j X αj ij, β =0 (3) S i X α j X ij,β = 1 (4) j These are, respectively, the hyperbolic, the generalized geometric, and the weighted means of the attributes, see Maasoumi (1986a). Noting the constant elasticity of substitution, σ = 1/(1+β), these functional solutions include many of the well known utility functions in economics, as well as some arbitrarily proposed aggregates in empirical applications. For instance, the weighted arithmetic mean subsumes a popular composite welfare indicator based on the principal components of X, when α j s are the elements of the first eigen vector of the X 0 X matrix; see Ram (1982) and Maasoumi (1989a). The divergence measure D β (.) forces a choice of an aggregate vector S= (S 1, S 2,...,S n )witha distribution that is closest to the distributions of its constituent variables. This is especially desirable when the goal of our analysis is the assessment of distributed outcomes, suchastreatmenteffects. But it is desirable generally since, empirically, we have no other "information" than the distribution of variables. Information theory establishes that any other S would be extra distortive of the objective information in the data matrix X in the sense of D β (.). Elsewhere it has been argued that such a distributional criterion is desirable for justifying
3 choices of utility, production, and cost functionals since such choices should not distort the actual market allocation signals that are in the observed data. The distribution of the data reflects the outcome of all decisions of all agents in the economy; see Maasoumi (1986b). The divergence criterion here is α j -weighted sum/average of pairwise GE divergences between the distributions S and X j, the jth attribute/column in X A Closer Look The reason we should explicitly deal with this problem of representation is to avoid implicit aggregation rules and representations which may not be tenable when exposed. For instance, in the propensity scores method a linear function of x would imply infinite substitutability between individual characteristics and other covariates! Any scalar functional of x is a summary measure of it, and possesses an induced "distribution". This summary distribution must not be incompatible with the information available on its constituent variables. While there are no consensus criteria for "closeness" or similarity in sciences, there are some very good ones that are supported by well thought out axioms and properties. The axiom system that identifies GE is constructive and is to be appreciated as an important breakthrough in organizing learning and knowledge; see Maasoumi (1993). The fundamental welfare axioms of symmetry, continuity, Principle of Transfers, and decomposability identify GE as the desirable scale invariant family of relative "inequality" measures. In the context of our discussion above, PS first takes a convenient function (typically linear, but oftenaugmentedwithpolynomialterms),g(x) say, and then transforms this into the unit interval by inversion through some cumulative distribution function (CDF), F say; Normal or logistic CDFs predominate in determining "treatment probability". While we may view this last transformation as a convenient standardization, we are less comfortable with its meaning. Firstly, neither g(x) nor F (g(x)) has any clear justification as a representation of individuals/households/policy mak- 1 In unpublished work, the authors have considered hyperbolic means of these same pairwise divergences. This generalization is capable of producing more flexible functional forms for S i. ers in the sense made clear earlier. Second, the parameter values, or indeed even semi-parametric estimates of these functionals, are determined with reference to optimal estimation rules which, again, have no clear connection to optimal representation or aggregation. In addition, the criticism in Heckman and Navaro-Lozano (2004), about the choice of covariates in x being based on estimation and model fit measures, applies. In addition, estimating conditional means or quantiles, further impinges on the plausibility of variable choices and coefficient values/factor loadings. Another discomforting aspect of the PS type solution is that the conditioning set is almost always made of the same fundamental and frequently observed/cited x variables, whatever the experiment or treatment. In the extreme, it is therefore possible that g(x) will be called upon to determine selection into a drug treatment program, as well as a welfare program! Finally, matching based on propensity scores is a decision on similarity of individuals based on estimated means of whole distributions, not the true means. Furthermore, many different distributions of individuals, and of heterogeneous groups, may have similar or even the same means. The "control function" method favored by Heckman and Navaro- Lozano (2004) is a second moment-based approach to partially deal with this shortcoming of the PS method. 3 An Application We use the data from Dehejia and Wahba (1999), which is based on Lalonde s (1986) seminal study on the comparison between experimental and nonexperimental methods for the evaluation of causal effects. The data combine the units from a randomized evaluation of the National ed Work (NSW) demonstration with nonexperimental comparison units drawn from PSID data. We restrict our analysis to the so-called NSW-PSID-1 subsample consisting of the male NSW treatment units, and the largest of the three PSID subsample. 2 The outcome of interest is real earnings in 1978; the treatment is participation in the NSW treatment group. Control covariates are age, educa- 2 The same data set was also utilized in Becker and Ichino (2000) and Smith and Todd (2005).
4 tion, real earnings in 1974 and 1975, and binary variables for black, hispanic, marital status and a degree. The treatment group contains 185 observations, the control group 2490 observations, for a total of PS specification includes the quadratic terms for age, education, real earnings in 1974 and 1975, an interaction term between black and unemployment as well as the linear covariates described above; S i, on the other hand, includes only the linear covariates. 3 In Table 1, matching is based on the aggregator functions, S i,aswellasonthe(normal)cdf transform of the S i ; Φ(S i ). The latter is done for direct comparability with the PS results, and to draw out the impact of different substitution and other parametric values. 4 Matching based on S i utilize the equal weights of α j (1/8), which is the number of linear covariates. We use the resulting coefficients of the linear probit model for α j when we match based on Φ(S i ). The standard errors were obtained by simple bootstrap and are given in parentheses. It is clear that inferences vary dramatically depending on which functional forms, weight parameters or βs are used. The case with β = 1 is the case of "infinite substitutability" between covariates in the linear in parameters models. When less substitution is allowed, we have dramatically different results, including the reversal of the sign for the ATT! This further reinforces the criticisms offered recently in Heckman and Navaro- Lozano (2004), and Smith and Todd (2005). 5 3 Unemployment is a binary variable defined for those who report non-zero earnings in We utilize nearest (single) neighbor matching in estimation of ATT. Kernel matching with different kernels/bandwidths produce similar results for ATT as of nearest neighbor matching. 5 We cannot use the interesting case of β =0when there are binary variables since this will produce a zero value for the generalized geometric function! Table 1: ATT Estimations with Different Matching Techniques ATT (Standard Error) /Non Non/ Matching with ( ) Matching with S(i), β= e e-008 ( ) Matching with S(i), β=-1/ e e-005 ( ) Matching with S(i), β=-2/ e e-007 ( ) Matching with Φ(S(i)), β= ( ) Kullback-Leibler Divergence Matching with Φ(S(i)), β=-1/ e e-005 ( ) Matching with Φ(S(i)), β=-2/ e e-004 ( ) NOTES: (i) estimation include: age, age squared, education, education squared, real earnings in 1974 and its square, real earnings in 1975 and its square, dummies for black, hispanic marital status, nodegree, and an interaction term between black and nonemployment in (ii) S(i) index include : age, education, real earnings in 1974, real earnings in 1975 and dummies for black, hispanic, marital status and nodegree with weight given by 1/8; the number of linear covariates. (iii) Φ(S(i)) includes the same specification as in S(i). The weights for Φ(S(i)) are the corresponding probability weights from the probit equation. (iv) Standard errors are obtained via 500 bootstrap replications. (v) Sample Size=2675, Units=185 and Non Units=2490. (v) Kullback-Leibler Divergence Measure is obtained via a Gaussian kernel with fixed bandwidth, see text for further details. In Table 1 we also provide an idea of proximity of the distributions of the propensity scores between the experimental and the matched nonexperimental groups. This can be used to evaluate the efficacy of the matching technique employed (here, the nearest neighbor), not as in the traditional way of assessing how close two or more matched pairs are, but how well "similar" the two samplesare. Thisisofsomeimportancegiventhe recent debate regarding the sensitivity and lack of robustness to the choice of subsamples being used by various investigators; see Smith and Todd (2005) and response by Dahejia (2005). KL and other entropic measures give an idea of how far apart the two distributions are. Z The KL measure is defined as I(f,g) = f log f g d x where f and g are the distributions of the and control groups for a variable x, respectively. A symmetrized version of this is the well-known KL measure, but we report both of the asymmetric measures which need to be averaged to get KL in the third column of Table 1. 6 The KL measures are smaller for S i functions and the comparable Φ(S i ) than matching with the traditional PS. Figures 1-4 demonstrate the distribution of the matched pairs by each technique. Specifically, these are frequency distributions of PS for each individual, and the comparable transformation Φ(S i ). 6 The KL measures are obtained using a Gaussian kernel and a fixed bandwidth.
5 Better "distribution" matches are obtained when Φ(S i ) is used with finite substitutability. and often distracted by statistical cost functions that need to be justified. 4 Treatment Effects: Stochastic Dominance Figure 1: Frequency Distributions of PS and Φ(S i ) for β = Figure 2: Frequency Distributions of Φ(S i ) for β = 1/2 and β = 2/3 Traditional PS matching seems to correspond to very different distributions of scores for the and un. The non-experimental subjects in the PSID were not considered for treatment, but should have similar scores if the PS matching theory is valid. It is evident that at lower levels of substitution between characteristics, treatment probability is increased for the un sample. Again these figures are computed using probit regression estimates for the α weights in the Φ(S i ) functions. Naturally, there would be some variation in these results as we change the α values. Basing these values, and the β, on estimation techniques is a decision to vary these graphs (PS values) to obtain statistically optimal values for treatment/selection probability. It is difficult a priori to see very many contexts in which this would be reflective of policy optimality, or in keeping with random assignment. These results make clear the difficulties of assessing treatment effect, and expose the nature of the implicit choices being made which appear disconnected from common program objectives. Data "snooping", such as balancing, and estimation of flexible or semi-parametric functional forms for PS regressions, are attempts at changing the above distribution matches, but without the benefit of guidance by whole distribution measures of "match", Following the IT reasoning above, it is possible and desirable to assess the similarity, or any relation between the distributions of outcomes for the and un/counterfactual groups. EntropymeasuressuchasKLcanbeusedbothto quantify differences and to test if the differences are significant. Any summary measure of this divergence/distance corresponds to a cardinal evaluation function that puts different weights on different subjects. This is true of the "average" treatment effects. Averages are particularly non-robust to outliers and special outcomes which may have nothingtodowiththetreatment. Butaverages, or specific quantiles, have the advantage of easy monetization for standard cost benefit analysisof policy outcomes. It would be useful to examine whether the distribution of outcomes is rankable between two scenarios, no matter what weights are attached to different subgroups. If it is desired to assess the impact of treatment on the entire "sample", and to avoid full cardinalizationrios, such as in "average effect" or choice of any quantile, weak uniform ranking presents itself as a useful method. Such rankings are achieved by tests for stochastic dominance. Various orders of SD can provide guidance and eliminate certain summary measures. For instance, if no First Order SD is found, one cannot employ averages, medians, and other single quantiles to summarize "the" treatment effect. Let X and Y be two variables. Let U 1 denote the class of all utility functions u such that u 0 0, (increasing). Also, let U 2 denote the class of all utility functions in U 1 for which u 00 0 (strict concavity). Assume F (x) and G(x) are continuous and monotonic cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) of X and Y, respectively. X First Order Dominates Y if F is everywhere to the right of G. X Second Order dominates Y if integrated F is everywhere to the right of integrated G. Lower order dominance implies higher order ones. See Linton et al (2005) for statistical tests of the relevant hypotheses. Below we examine the sample values graphically. No
6 significance levels are reported as necessary descriptions cannot be included in this limited space. 4.1 SD rankings for DW data Integrated non non Integrated Figure 6: CDFs and Integrated CDFs for Φ(S i ) for β = 2/3 The case of β = 1/2 is qualitatively identical to this case. non non Figure 3: CDFs and Integrated CDFs of Propensity Score (FSD not ruled out, SSD indicated) Similar results for the CDFs and Integrated CDFs for S i when β = 1; FSD not ruled out, SSD likely. non Integrated non Figure 4: CDFs and Integrated CDFs for S i for β = 1/2 This case is instructive. The CDFs cross, indicating different groups are impacted differently and not uniformly. A discussion of averages and quantiles leaves the policy maker in a quandary. But since even SSD is not certain, a simple risk aversion, or inequality aversion, would not allow the policy maker to make uniform statements about program effects. Given the indication of 3rd order SD, it appears that only a policy maker, that is a welfare summary measure, which cares increasingly more about transfers at the lower end of earnings distribution, might declare the program a benefit (irrespective of costs). The case for β = 2/3 is qualitatively similar to the case of β = 1/2. non Integrated non Figure 5: CDFs and Integrated CDFs for Φ(S i ) for β = 1 References [1] Becker, S. O. and A. Ichino (2000), "Estimation of Average Treatment Effect Based on ", Stata Journal, 2, Dahejia, R.H. (2005),"Program evaluation as a Decision Problem", Journal of Econometrics, 125, [2] Dahejia, R., and S. Wahba (1999), "Causal Effects in Non-Experimental Studies: Reevaluating the evaluation of training programs", Journal of American Statistical Association, 94, [3] Deheija, R. and S. Wahba (2002), Propensity Score-Matching Methods for Nonexperimental Causal Studies, Review of Economics & Statistics, 84, [4] Granger, C., E. Maasoumi and J. S. Racine (2004), "A Dependence Metric for Possibly Nonlinear Time Series", Journal of Time Series Analysis, vol. 25, 5, pages [5] Heckman, J. and S. Navarro-Lozano (2004), Using Matching, Instrumental Variables, and Control Functions to Estimate Economic Choice Models, Review of Economics & Statistics, 86, [6] Imbens, G.W. (2004), Nonparametric Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Under Exogeneity: A Review, Review of Economics & Statistics, 86, [7] Kolm, S.C. (1977), Multidimensional egalitarianism, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 91, 1-13.
7 [8] Lalonde, R. (1986),"Evaluating the Econometric evaluations of the Training Programs with Experimental Data", American Economic Review, 76, [9] Linton, O., E. Maasoumi, and Y. J. Whang (2005),"Consistent Testing for Stochastic Dominance under general Sampling Schemes", Review of Economic Studies, forthcoming. [19] (1980), The class of additively decomposable inequality measures, Econometrica, 48, [20] Smith, J. A. and P.E. Todd (2005),"Does Matching overcome LaLonde s critique of nonexperimental estimators", Journal of Econometrics,125, [10] Maasoumi, E.(1986a), The Measurement and Decomposition of Multi-Dimensional Inequality, Econometrica, 54, [11] (1986b), Unknown regression functions and efficient functional forms: An interpretation, Advances in Econometrics, 5, [12] Maasoumi, E.(1989a), Composite Indices of Income and Other Developmental Indicators : A General Approach, Research on Economic Inequality, Vol. 1, [13]. (1993), A Compendium to Information Theory in Economics and Econometrics, Econometric Reviews, Vol 12, 3, [14] Maasoumi, E., and G. Nickelsburg (1988), Multivariate Measures of Well Being and an Analysis of Inequality in the Michigan Data, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 6, 3, [15] Ram, R.(1982), Composite Indices of Physical Quality of Life, Basic needs Fulfillment, and Income : A Principal Component representation, Journal of Development Economics, 11, [16] Sen, A. (1970a) Collective choice and social welfare, Holden Day: San Francisco, (reprinted, North-Holland, 1979). [17] (1970b), Degrees of cardinality and aggregate partial orderings, Econometrica, 43, [18] (1977), On Weights and Measures: Informational constraints in social welfare analysis, Econometrica, 45, 7,
Selection on Observables: Propensity Score Matching.
Selection on Observables: Propensity Score Matching. Department of Economics and Management Irene Brunetti ireneb@ec.unipi.it 24/10/2017 I. Brunetti Labour Economics in an European Perspective 24/10/2017
More informationMatching Techniques. Technical Session VI. Manila, December Jed Friedman. Spanish Impact Evaluation. Fund. Region
Impact Evaluation Technical Session VI Matching Techniques Jed Friedman Manila, December 2008 Human Development Network East Asia and the Pacific Region Spanish Impact Evaluation Fund The case of random
More informationFlexible Estimation of Treatment Effect Parameters
Flexible Estimation of Treatment Effect Parameters Thomas MaCurdy a and Xiaohong Chen b and Han Hong c Introduction Many empirical studies of program evaluations are complicated by the presence of both
More informationEcon 673: Microeconometrics Chapter 12: Estimating Treatment Effects. The Problem
Econ 673: Microeconometrics Chapter 12: Estimating Treatment Effects The Problem Analysts are frequently interested in measuring the impact of a treatment on individual behavior; e.g., the impact of job
More informationA Measure of Robustness to Misspecification
A Measure of Robustness to Misspecification Susan Athey Guido W. Imbens December 2014 Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, and NBER. Electronic correspondence: athey@stanford.edu. Graduate
More informationNBER WORKING PAPER SERIES A NOTE ON ADAPTING PROPENSITY SCORE MATCHING AND SELECTION MODELS TO CHOICE BASED SAMPLES. James J. Heckman Petra E.
NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES A NOTE ON ADAPTING PROPENSITY SCORE MATCHING AND SELECTION MODELS TO CHOICE BASED SAMPLES James J. Heckman Petra E. Todd Working Paper 15179 http://www.nber.org/papers/w15179
More informationA Note on Adapting Propensity Score Matching and Selection Models to Choice Based Samples
DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES IZA DP No. 4304 A Note on Adapting Propensity Score Matching and Selection Models to Choice Based Samples James J. Heckman Petra E. Todd July 2009 Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft
More informationCausal Inference Lecture Notes: Causal Inference with Repeated Measures in Observational Studies
Causal Inference Lecture Notes: Causal Inference with Repeated Measures in Observational Studies Kosuke Imai Department of Politics Princeton University November 13, 2013 So far, we have essentially assumed
More informationWhat s New in Econometrics. Lecture 1
What s New in Econometrics Lecture 1 Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Under Unconfoundedness Guido Imbens NBER Summer Institute, 2007 Outline 1. Introduction 2. Potential Outcomes 3. Estimands and
More informationstudies, situations (like an experiment) in which a group of units is exposed to a
1. Introduction An important problem of causal inference is how to estimate treatment effects in observational studies, situations (like an experiment) in which a group of units is exposed to a well-defined
More informationMultidimensioned Approaches to Welfare Analysis By
Multidimensioned Approaches to Welfare Analysis By Esfandiar Maasoumi Department of Economics, SMU, Dallas, TX 75275-0496 MAASOUMI@mail.smu.edu 1998 1 Key Words: Welfare, multidimensional, inequality indices,
More informationINFERENCE APPROACHES FOR INSTRUMENTAL VARIABLE QUANTILE REGRESSION. 1. Introduction
INFERENCE APPROACHES FOR INSTRUMENTAL VARIABLE QUANTILE REGRESSION VICTOR CHERNOZHUKOV CHRISTIAN HANSEN MICHAEL JANSSON Abstract. We consider asymptotic and finite-sample confidence bounds in instrumental
More informationA Course in Applied Econometrics. Lecture 2 Outline. Estimation of Average Treatment Effects. Under Unconfoundedness, Part II
A Course in Applied Econometrics Lecture Outline Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Under Unconfoundedness, Part II. Assessing Unconfoundedness (not testable). Overlap. Illustration based on Lalonde
More informationImbens/Wooldridge, IRP Lecture Notes 2, August 08 1
Imbens/Wooldridge, IRP Lecture Notes 2, August 08 IRP Lectures Madison, WI, August 2008 Lecture 2, Monday, Aug 4th, 0.00-.00am Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Under Unconfoundedness, Part II. Introduction
More informationESTIMATION OF TREATMENT EFFECTS VIA MATCHING
ESTIMATION OF TREATMENT EFFECTS VIA MATCHING AAEC 56 INSTRUCTOR: KLAUS MOELTNER Textbooks: R scripts: Wooldridge (00), Ch.; Greene (0), Ch.9; Angrist and Pischke (00), Ch. 3 mod5s3 General Approach The
More informationEmpirical Methods in Applied Microeconomics
Empirical Methods in Applied Microeconomics Jörn-Ste en Pischke LSE November 2007 1 Nonlinearity and Heterogeneity We have so far concentrated on the estimation of treatment e ects when the treatment e
More informationEstimation of Treatment Effects under Essential Heterogeneity
Estimation of Treatment Effects under Essential Heterogeneity James Heckman University of Chicago and American Bar Foundation Sergio Urzua University of Chicago Edward Vytlacil Columbia University March
More informationBy Marcel Voia. February Abstract
Nonlinear DID estimation of the treatment effect when the outcome variable is the employment/unemployment duration By Marcel Voia February 2005 Abstract This paper uses an econometric framework introduced
More informationMultifactor Inequality: Substitution Effects for Income Sources in Mexico
Multifactor Inequality: Substitution Effects for Income Sources in Mexico Maria Elena Garcia Reyes University of York. Department of Economics. Heslington, York YO105DD, U.K. megr100@york.ac.uk May 31,
More informationDOCUMENTS DE TRAVAIL CEMOI / CEMOI WORKING PAPERS. A SAS macro to estimate Average Treatment Effects with Matching Estimators
DOCUMENTS DE TRAVAIL CEMOI / CEMOI WORKING PAPERS A SAS macro to estimate Average Treatment Effects with Matching Estimators Nicolas Moreau 1 http://cemoi.univ-reunion.fr/publications/ Centre d'economie
More informationApplied Microeconometrics (L5): Panel Data-Basics
Applied Microeconometrics (L5): Panel Data-Basics Nicholas Giannakopoulos University of Patras Department of Economics ngias@upatras.gr November 10, 2015 Nicholas Giannakopoulos (UPatras) MSc Applied Economics
More informationThe Gender Gap Between Earnings Distributions
The Gender Gap Between Earnings Distributions Esfandiar Maasoumi Emory University Le Wang University of Alabama, & IZA October 2014 Abstract This paper provides an examination of the notion of distance
More informationA Simulation-Based Sensitivity Analysis for Matching Estimators
A Simulation-Based Sensitivity Analysis for Matching Estimators Tommaso Nannicini Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Abstract. This article presents a Stata program (sensatt) that implements the sensitivity
More informationLinear Models in Econometrics
Linear Models in Econometrics Nicky Grant At the most fundamental level econometrics is the development of statistical techniques suited primarily to answering economic questions and testing economic theories.
More informationNinth ARTNeT Capacity Building Workshop for Trade Research "Trade Flows and Trade Policy Analysis"
Ninth ARTNeT Capacity Building Workshop for Trade Research "Trade Flows and Trade Policy Analysis" June 2013 Bangkok, Thailand Cosimo Beverelli and Rainer Lanz (World Trade Organization) 1 Selected econometric
More informationPropensity Score Matching and Policy Impact Analysis. B. Essama-Nssah Poverty Reduction Group The World Bank Washington, D.C.
Propensity Score Matching and Policy Impact Analysis B. Essama-Nssah Poverty Reduction Group The World Bank Washington, D.C. May, 2006 Foreword The informational basis of a judgement identifies the information
More informationMatching using Semiparametric Propensity Scores
Matching using Semiparametric Propensity Scores Gregory Kordas Department of Economics University of Pennsylvania kordas@ssc.upenn.edu Steven F. Lehrer SPS and Department of Economics Queen s University
More informationMore on Roy Model of Self-Selection
V. J. Hotz Rev. May 26, 2007 More on Roy Model of Self-Selection Results drawn on Heckman and Sedlacek JPE, 1985 and Heckman and Honoré, Econometrica, 1986. Two-sector model in which: Agents are income
More informationIndependent and conditionally independent counterfactual distributions
Independent and conditionally independent counterfactual distributions Marcin Wolski European Investment Bank M.Wolski@eib.org Society for Nonlinear Dynamics and Econometrics Tokyo March 19, 2018 Views
More informationIdentification and Estimation Using Heteroscedasticity Without Instruments: The Binary Endogenous Regressor Case
Identification and Estimation Using Heteroscedasticity Without Instruments: The Binary Endogenous Regressor Case Arthur Lewbel Boston College December 2016 Abstract Lewbel (2012) provides an estimator
More informationTesting for Regime Switching in Singaporean Business Cycles
Testing for Regime Switching in Singaporean Business Cycles Robert Breunig School of Economics Faculty of Economics and Commerce Australian National University and Alison Stegman Research School of Pacific
More informationMicroeconometrics. C. Hsiao (2014), Analysis of Panel Data, 3rd edition. Cambridge, University Press.
Cheng Hsiao Microeconometrics Required Text: C. Hsiao (2014), Analysis of Panel Data, 3rd edition. Cambridge, University Press. A.C. Cameron and P.K. Trivedi (2005), Microeconometrics, Cambridge University
More informationWeak Stochastic Increasingness, Rank Exchangeability, and Partial Identification of The Distribution of Treatment Effects
Weak Stochastic Increasingness, Rank Exchangeability, and Partial Identification of The Distribution of Treatment Effects Brigham R. Frandsen Lars J. Lefgren December 16, 2015 Abstract This article develops
More informationPropensity Score Matching and Variations on the Balancing Test
Propensity Score Matching and Variations on the Balancing Test Wang-Sheng Lee* Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research The University of Melbourne First version: November 3, 2005 This
More informationGenerated Covariates in Nonparametric Estimation: A Short Review.
Generated Covariates in Nonparametric Estimation: A Short Review. Enno Mammen, Christoph Rothe, and Melanie Schienle Abstract In many applications, covariates are not observed but have to be estimated
More informationPrinciples Underlying Evaluation Estimators
The Principles Underlying Evaluation Estimators James J. University of Chicago Econ 350, Winter 2019 The Basic Principles Underlying the Identification of the Main Econometric Evaluation Estimators Two
More informationComments on: Panel Data Analysis Advantages and Challenges. Manuel Arellano CEMFI, Madrid November 2006
Comments on: Panel Data Analysis Advantages and Challenges Manuel Arellano CEMFI, Madrid November 2006 This paper provides an impressive, yet compact and easily accessible review of the econometric literature
More informationEstimating and Using Propensity Score in Presence of Missing Background Data. An Application to Assess the Impact of Childbearing on Wellbeing
Estimating and Using Propensity Score in Presence of Missing Background Data. An Application to Assess the Impact of Childbearing on Wellbeing Alessandra Mattei Dipartimento di Statistica G. Parenti Università
More information12E016. Econometric Methods II 6 ECTS. Overview and Objectives
Overview and Objectives This course builds on and further extends the econometric and statistical content studied in the first quarter, with a special focus on techniques relevant to the specific field
More informationPart VII. Accounting for the Endogeneity of Schooling. Endogeneity of schooling Mean growth rate of earnings Mean growth rate Selection bias Summary
Part VII Accounting for the Endogeneity of Schooling 327 / 785 Much of the CPS-Census literature on the returns to schooling ignores the choice of schooling and its consequences for estimating the rate
More informationQuantitative Economics for the Evaluation of the European Policy
Quantitative Economics for the Evaluation of the European Policy Dipartimento di Economia e Management Irene Brunetti Davide Fiaschi Angela Parenti 1 25th of September, 2017 1 ireneb@ec.unipi.it, davide.fiaschi@unipi.it,
More informationSIMULATION-BASED SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR MATCHING ESTIMATORS
SIMULATION-BASED SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR MATCHING ESTIMATORS TOMMASO NANNICINI universidad carlos iii de madrid UK Stata Users Group Meeting London, September 10, 2007 CONTENT Presentation of a Stata
More informationThe Gender Earnings Gap: Measurement and Analysis
The Gender Earnings Gap: Measurement and Analysis Esfandiar Maasoumi Emory University Le Wang University of New Hampshire & IZA Abstract This paper presents a set of complementary tools for measurement
More informationWhat s New in Econometrics? Lecture 14 Quantile Methods
What s New in Econometrics? Lecture 14 Quantile Methods Jeff Wooldridge NBER Summer Institute, 2007 1. Reminders About Means, Medians, and Quantiles 2. Some Useful Asymptotic Results 3. Quantile Regression
More informationEconometric Causality
Econometric (2008) International Statistical Review, 76(1):1-27 James J. Heckman Spencer/INET Conference University of Chicago Econometric The econometric approach to causality develops explicit models
More informationCausal Inference with General Treatment Regimes: Generalizing the Propensity Score
Causal Inference with General Treatment Regimes: Generalizing the Propensity Score David van Dyk Department of Statistics, University of California, Irvine vandyk@stat.harvard.edu Joint work with Kosuke
More informationThe Econometric Evaluation of Policy Design: Part I: Heterogeneity in Program Impacts, Modeling Self-Selection, and Parameters of Interest
The Econometric Evaluation of Policy Design: Part I: Heterogeneity in Program Impacts, Modeling Self-Selection, and Parameters of Interest Edward Vytlacil, Yale University Renmin University, Department
More informationImplementing Matching Estimators for. Average Treatment Effects in STATA
Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment Effects in STATA Guido W. Imbens - Harvard University West Coast Stata Users Group meeting, Los Angeles October 26th, 2007 General Motivation Estimation
More informationImplementing Matching Estimators for. Average Treatment Effects in STATA. Guido W. Imbens - Harvard University Stata User Group Meeting, Boston
Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment Effects in STATA Guido W. Imbens - Harvard University Stata User Group Meeting, Boston July 26th, 2006 General Motivation Estimation of average effect
More informationPropensity Score Matching and Variations on the Balancing Test
Propensity Score Matching and Variations on the Balancing Test Wang-Sheng Lee* Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research The University of Melbourne March 10, 2006 Abstract This paper
More informationExploring Marginal Treatment Effects
Exploring Marginal Treatment Effects Flexible estimation using Stata Martin Eckhoff Andresen Statistics Norway Oslo, September 12th 2018 Martin Andresen (SSB) Exploring MTEs Oslo, 2018 1 / 25 Introduction
More informationResearch Statement. Zhongwen Liang
Research Statement Zhongwen Liang My research is concentrated on theoretical and empirical econometrics, with the focus of developing statistical methods and tools to do the quantitative analysis of empirical
More informationCausal Inference in Observational Studies with Non-Binary Treatments. David A. van Dyk
Causal Inference in Observational Studies with Non-Binary reatments Statistics Section, Imperial College London Joint work with Shandong Zhao and Kosuke Imai Cass Business School, October 2013 Outline
More informationPropensity Score Methods for Causal Inference
John Pura BIOS790 October 2, 2015 Causal inference Philosophical problem, statistical solution Important in various disciplines (e.g. Koch s postulates, Bradford Hill criteria, Granger causality) Good
More informationConsistent multidimensional poverty comparisons
Preliminary version - Please do not distribute Consistent multidimensional poverty comparisons Kristof Bosmans a Luc Lauwers b Erwin Ooghe b a Department of Economics, Maastricht University, Tongersestraat
More informationfinite-sample optimal estimation and inference on average treatment effects under unconfoundedness
finite-sample optimal estimation and inference on average treatment effects under unconfoundedness Timothy Armstrong (Yale University) Michal Kolesár (Princeton University) September 2017 Introduction
More informationOnline Appendix: The Role of Theory in Instrument-Variables Strategies
Journal of Economic Perspectives Volume 24, Number 3 Summer 2010 Pages 1 6 Online Appendix: The Role of Theory in Instrument-Variables Strategies In this appendix, I illustrate the role of theory further
More informationPolicy-Relevant Treatment Effects
Policy-Relevant Treatment Effects By JAMES J. HECKMAN AND EDWARD VYTLACIL* Accounting for individual-level heterogeneity in the response to treatment is a major development in the econometric literature
More informationNew Developments in Econometrics Lecture 11: Difference-in-Differences Estimation
New Developments in Econometrics Lecture 11: Difference-in-Differences Estimation Jeff Wooldridge Cemmap Lectures, UCL, June 2009 1. The Basic Methodology 2. How Should We View Uncertainty in DD Settings?
More informationSensitivity analysis for average treatment effects
The Stata Journal (2007) 7, Number 1, pp. 71 83 Sensitivity analysis for average treatment effects Sascha O. Becker Center for Economic Studies Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany so.b@gmx.net
More informationESTIMATING AVERAGE TREATMENT EFFECTS: REGRESSION DISCONTINUITY DESIGNS Jeff Wooldridge Michigan State University BGSE/IZA Course in Microeconometrics
ESTIMATING AVERAGE TREATMENT EFFECTS: REGRESSION DISCONTINUITY DESIGNS Jeff Wooldridge Michigan State University BGSE/IZA Course in Microeconometrics July 2009 1. Introduction 2. The Sharp RD Design 3.
More informationMeasurement of Inequality and Social Welfare
January 16, 218 Ranking income distribution and Lorenz curves: Partial and complete orderings (i) Partial orderings: Stochastic and inverse stochastic dominance, Lorenz dominance (ii) Complete orderings:
More informationThe Economics of European Regions: Theory, Empirics, and Policy
The Economics of European Regions: Theory, Empirics, and Policy Dipartimento di Economia e Management Davide Fiaschi Angela Parenti 1 1 davide.fiaschi@unipi.it, and aparenti@ec.unipi.it. Fiaschi-Parenti
More informationA Course in Applied Econometrics Lecture 18: Missing Data. Jeff Wooldridge IRP Lectures, UW Madison, August Linear model with IVs: y i x i u i,
A Course in Applied Econometrics Lecture 18: Missing Data Jeff Wooldridge IRP Lectures, UW Madison, August 2008 1. When Can Missing Data be Ignored? 2. Inverse Probability Weighting 3. Imputation 4. Heckman-Type
More informationIdentification and Estimation Using Heteroscedasticity Without Instruments: The Binary Endogenous Regressor Case
Identification and Estimation Using Heteroscedasticity Without Instruments: The Binary Endogenous Regressor Case Arthur Lewbel Boston College Original December 2016, revised July 2017 Abstract Lewbel (2012)
More informationSection 10: Inverse propensity score weighting (IPSW)
Section 10: Inverse propensity score weighting (IPSW) Fall 2014 1/23 Inverse Propensity Score Weighting (IPSW) Until now we discussed matching on the P-score, a different approach is to re-weight the observations
More informationWhen Should We Use Linear Fixed Effects Regression Models for Causal Inference with Panel Data?
When Should We Use Linear Fixed Effects Regression Models for Causal Inference with Panel Data? Kosuke Imai Department of Politics Center for Statistics and Machine Learning Princeton University Joint
More informationSources of Inequality: Additive Decomposition of the Gini Coefficient.
Sources of Inequality: Additive Decomposition of the Gini Coefficient. Carlos Hurtado Econometrics Seminar Department of Economics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign hrtdmrt2@illinois.edu Feb 24th,
More informationEmpirical approaches in public economics
Empirical approaches in public economics ECON4624 Empirical Public Economics Fall 2016 Gaute Torsvik Outline for today The canonical problem Basic concepts of causal inference Randomized experiments Non-experimental
More informationMulti-dimensional Human Development Measures : Trade-offs and Inequality
Multi-dimensional Human Development Measures : Trade-offs and Inequality presented by Jaya Krishnakumar University of Geneva UNDP Workshop on Measuring Human Development June 14, 2013 GIZ, Eschborn, Frankfurt
More informationBayesian Assessment of Lorenz and Stochastic Dominance in Income Distributions
Bayesian Assessment of Lorenz and Stochastic Dominance in Income Distributions Duangkamon Chotikapanich Monash niversity William E. Griffiths niversity of Melbourne Abstract Hypothesis tests for dominance
More informationUNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM. Discussion Papers in Economics CONSISTENT FIRM CHOICE AND THE THEORY OF SUPPLY
UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM Discussion Papers in Economics Discussion Paper No. 0/06 CONSISTENT FIRM CHOICE AND THE THEORY OF SUPPLY by Indraneel Dasgupta July 00 DP 0/06 ISSN 1360-438 UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM
More informationCommuting preferences: habit formation or sorting?
Commuting preferences: habit formation or sorting? Jack Zagha Hop Technical University of Denmark, Bygningstorvet Building 116 Vest, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark jzho@transport.dtu.dk Ismir Mulalic Technical
More informationLecture Notes 1: Decisions and Data. In these notes, I describe some basic ideas in decision theory. theory is constructed from
Topics in Data Analysis Steven N. Durlauf University of Wisconsin Lecture Notes : Decisions and Data In these notes, I describe some basic ideas in decision theory. theory is constructed from The Data:
More informationApplied Health Economics (for B.Sc.)
Applied Health Economics (for B.Sc.) Helmut Farbmacher Department of Economics University of Mannheim Autumn Semester 2017 Outlook 1 Linear models (OLS, Omitted variables, 2SLS) 2 Limited and qualitative
More informationSupplementary material to: Tolerating deance? Local average treatment eects without monotonicity.
Supplementary material to: Tolerating deance? Local average treatment eects without monotonicity. Clément de Chaisemartin September 1, 2016 Abstract This paper gathers the supplementary material to de
More informationAn Introduction to Relative Distribution Methods
An Introduction to Relative Distribution Methods by Mark S Handcock Professor of Statistics and Sociology Center for Statistics and the Social Sciences CSDE Seminar Series March 2, 2001 In collaboration
More informationIV Quantile Regression for Group-level Treatments, with an Application to the Distributional Effects of Trade
IV Quantile Regression for Group-level Treatments, with an Application to the Distributional Effects of Trade Denis Chetverikov Brad Larsen Christopher Palmer UCLA, Stanford and NBER, UC Berkeley September
More informationThe Non-Existence of Representative Agents
The Non-Existence of Representative Agents Matthew O. Jackson and Leeat Yariv November 2015 Abstract We characterize environments in which there exists a representative agent: an agent who inherits the
More informationA SOLUTION TO AGGREGATION AND AN APPLICATION TO MULTIDIMENSIONAL WELL-BEING FRONTIERS
A SOLUTION TO AGGREGATION AND AN APPLICATION TO MULTIDIMENSIONAL WELL-BEING FRONTIERS ESFANDIAR MAASOUMI AND JEFFREY S. RACINE Abstract. We propose a new technique for identification and estimation of
More informationCourse Description. Course Requirements
University of Pennsylvania Spring 2007 Econ 721: Advanced Microeconometrics Petra Todd Course Description Lecture: 9:00-10:20 Tuesdays and Thursdays Office Hours: 10am-12 Fridays or by appointment. To
More informationIDENTIFICATION OF MARGINAL EFFECTS IN NONSEPARABLE MODELS WITHOUT MONOTONICITY
Econometrica, Vol. 75, No. 5 (September, 2007), 1513 1518 IDENTIFICATION OF MARGINAL EFFECTS IN NONSEPARABLE MODELS WITHOUT MONOTONICITY BY STEFAN HODERLEIN AND ENNO MAMMEN 1 Nonseparable models do not
More informationDo Markov-Switching Models Capture Nonlinearities in the Data? Tests using Nonparametric Methods
Do Markov-Switching Models Capture Nonlinearities in the Data? Tests using Nonparametric Methods Robert V. Breunig Centre for Economic Policy Research, Research School of Social Sciences and School of
More informationEconometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data
Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data Jeffrey M. Wooldridge / The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England Contents Preface Acknowledgments xvii xxiii I INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
More informationA Note on Demand Estimation with Supply Information. in Non-Linear Models
A Note on Demand Estimation with Supply Information in Non-Linear Models Tongil TI Kim Emory University J. Miguel Villas-Boas University of California, Berkeley May, 2018 Keywords: demand estimation, limited
More informationStatistical Models for Causal Analysis
Statistical Models for Causal Analysis Teppei Yamamoto Keio University Introduction to Causal Inference Spring 2016 Three Modes of Statistical Inference 1. Descriptive Inference: summarizing and exploring
More informationWhy experimenters should not randomize, and what they should do instead
Why experimenters should not randomize, and what they should do instead Maximilian Kasy Department of Economics, Harvard University Maximilian Kasy (Harvard) Experimental design 1 / 42 project STAR Introduction
More informationFORECASTING STANDARDS CHECKLIST
FORECASTING STANDARDS CHECKLIST An electronic version of this checklist is available on the Forecasting Principles Web site. PROBLEM 1. Setting Objectives 1.1. Describe decisions that might be affected
More informationAxiomatic bargaining. theory
Axiomatic bargaining theory Objective: To formulate and analyse reasonable criteria for dividing the gains or losses from a cooperative endeavour among several agents. We begin with a non-empty set of
More informationWELFARE: THE SOCIAL- WELFARE FUNCTION
Prerequisites Almost essential Welfare: Basics Welfare: Efficiency WELFARE: THE SOCIAL- WELFARE FUNCTION MICROECONOMICS Principles and Analysis Frank Cowell July 2017 1 Social Welfare Function Limitations
More informationImpact Evaluation Technical Workshop:
Impact Evaluation Technical Workshop: Asian Development Bank Sept 1 3, 2014 Manila, Philippines Session 19(b) Quantile Treatment Effects I. Quantile Treatment Effects Most of the evaluation literature
More informationTrade, Inequality and Costly Redistribution
Trade, Inequality and Costly Redistribution Pol Antràs Alonso de Gortari Oleg Itskhoki Harvard Harvard Princeton ILO Symposium September 2015 1 / 30 Introduction International trade raises real income
More informationWhen Should We Use Linear Fixed Effects Regression Models for Causal Inference with Longitudinal Data?
When Should We Use Linear Fixed Effects Regression Models for Causal Inference with Longitudinal Data? Kosuke Imai Department of Politics Center for Statistics and Machine Learning Princeton University
More informationChapter 1 Statistical Inference
Chapter 1 Statistical Inference causal inference To infer causality, you need a randomized experiment (or a huge observational study and lots of outside information). inference to populations Generalizations
More informationEconometric Analysis of Games 1
Econometric Analysis of Games 1 HT 2017 Recap Aim: provide an introduction to incomplete models and partial identification in the context of discrete games 1. Coherence & Completeness 2. Basic Framework
More informationMatching. James J. Heckman Econ 312. This draft, May 15, Intro Match Further MTE Impl Comp Gen. Roy Req Info Info Add Proxies Disc Modal Summ
Matching James J. Heckman Econ 312 This draft, May 15, 2007 1 / 169 Introduction The assumption most commonly made to circumvent problems with randomization is that even though D is not random with respect
More informationECE521 week 3: 23/26 January 2017
ECE521 week 3: 23/26 January 2017 Outline Probabilistic interpretation of linear regression - Maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) - Maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimation Bias-variance trade-off Linear
More informationMissing dependent variables in panel data models
Missing dependent variables in panel data models Jason Abrevaya Abstract This paper considers estimation of a fixed-effects model in which the dependent variable may be missing. For cross-sectional units
More informationThe problem of causality in microeconometrics.
The problem of causality in microeconometrics. Andrea Ichino University of Bologna and Cepr June 11, 2007 Contents 1 The Problem of Causality 1 1.1 A formal framework to think about causality....................................
More informationEmpirical Analysis III
Empirical Analysis III The University of Chicago April 11, 2019 (UChicago) Econ312 Mogstad April 11, 2019 1 / 89 Content: Week 2 Today we focus on observational data, a single cross-section What can we
More information